On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 23:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 1. Do nothing, rely on automatically generated requires (eg, the major > >> version of a shared library's soname). Maximum flexibility, maximum > >> possibility of allowing installations that don't actually work. > > > Show me a package that would break if a different version library was > > used that has the same soname and I'll show you a developer that needs > > to learn how to properly use sonames. > > Hmm, you think a version digit or so is enough to encode everything > there is to be known about a package? Think of SONAMES in terms of APIs. Two packages providing a library with the same SONAME must be API-compatible and remain API-compatible throughout a distributions life-time. Read "info libtool" for one approach to it. More generally speaking, version-numbers will never be enough to "encode everything ... about a package". They are a minimum, "necessary requirement" and will need to be supported by further measures. Which, depends on your individual case. For compile time deps, "compile-time feature-checks" are an appropriate means, in other situations, you may use run-time checks, ... if all else fail, you will need to resort to "conventions". Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
